arxiv: v2 [math.oc] 12 Feb 2019

Transcription

1 A CENTRAL PATH FOLLOWING METHOD USING THE NORMALIZED GRADIENTS Long Chen 1, Wenyi Chen 2, and Kai-Uwe Bletzinger 1 arxiv: v2 [math.oc] 12 Feb Chair of Structural Analysis, Technical University of Munich long.chen@tum.de 2 School of Mathematics and Statistics, Wuhan University wychencn@whu.edu.cn Key words: Gradient-based constrained optimization, centrality conditions, normalized gradient, shape optimization Abstract. Motivated by the applications of the node-based shape optimization problem, where various response evaluations are often considered in constrained optimization, we propose a central path following method using the normalized gradients. There exist numerous methods solving constrained optimization problems. The methods of the class active-set strategy try to travel along the active constraints to solve constrained optimization problems. Contrary to the active-set methods, the algorithms of the class interior-point method reach an optimal solution by traversing the interior of the feasible domain. This characteristic is considered to be beneficial for shape optimization because the usual zig-zagging behavior when traveling along the active constraints are avoided. However, the interior-point methods require to solve a Newton problem in each iteration, which is generally considered to be difficult for the shape optimization problem. In the present work, we propose a path following method based on the gradient flow calculated using the normalized gradients of the objective and constraint functions. Applying the proposed method, we observe that the centrality conditions for the interior-point method are approached iteratively. The algorithm is able to approach a local minimum by traversing the interior of the feasible domain by only using the gradient information of the objective and constraint functions. We show a convergence analysis for a 2D optimization problem with a linear constraint. The results are shown first with analytical 2D constrained optimization problems, and then the results of shape optimization problems with a large number of design variables are discussed. To robustly deal with complex geometries, the Vertex Morphing method is used. 1 INTRODUCTION In the practice of the node-based shape optimization in combination with the Vertex Morphing method [1][2], a large number of design variables are often considered in constrained optimization. The objective function, as well as the constraint functions, can be highly non-linear. When treating inequality constraints, the generalization of equality

2 constraints to inequalities is most conveniently made through the active-set strategy [5]. Various methods belong to the class of active set strategy, such as the reduced gradient method [6], gradient projection method [7], Sequential Linear Programming (SLP) and Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) [8]. A comprehensive review of the literature is beyond the scope of the present paper, and the interested reader is referred to [4][9]. The active-set algorithms utilize the steepest descent direction f(x) of the unconstrained problem f(x) as the search direction if there is no active constraint. When the constraints are active, their effect is then included in calculating the search direction. The algorithms try to find a local minimum by traveling along the active constraint. In the context of shape optimization with a large number of design variables, due to the high nonlinearity of the optimization problem as well as a high requirement regarding the mesh quality, active-set algorithms might result in inefficiency in the optimization procedure due to the fact, that the algorithms need to follow the active constraint paths. The phenomenon of traveling along the active constraints can be observed in the previous work for the geometrically constrained shape optimization in the combination of Vertex Morphing and the gradient projection method [10]. Another class of algorithms that solves linear and nonlinear convex optimization is the interior-point methods [11]. For linear programming problems, contrary to the Simplex method [12], the Karmarkar s algorithm [13] reaches the best solution by traversing the interior of the feasible region. The formulation of barrier problems and its solution with the interior-point method may be motivated by the perturbed Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) optimality conditions [14]. The perturbed optimality conditions can be also formulated as the centrality conditions [3]. Among the interior-point methods, the class of primal-dual path following methods [15] is considered to be most successful. Both barrier method and primal-dual method need to solve a Newton problem in each iteration step, which makes it less attractive for the shape optimization problem due to the high requirement for the mesh quality and the numerical efficiency. In the present work, we propose a path following method for the constrained optimization problems based on the gradient flow formulated using the normalized gradients of the objective and constraint functions. Instead of using the steepest-descent direction directly as if there is no active constraint, we consider the impact of the constraints. The search direction is modified such that the centrality conditions [3] can be better fulfilled in the next iteration compared to the steepest-descent direction. The paper is structured as follows: First, the logarithmic barrier function, and the centrality conditions are briefly reviewed as the basis of the proposed path following method. The proposed method is systematically assessed based on 2D analytical constrained optimization examples, and a convergence analysis is given for a 2D case. Afterwards, selected results of complex shape optimizations of structures with Vertex Morphing method with various constraints are discussed. Finally, a conclusion of the paper is made. 2

3 2 The logarithmic barrier function and centrality conditions for the interiorpoint method The proposed method uses the orthonormal bases of the responses gradients to construct a modified search direction, such that the centrality conditions can be better fulfilled in the next iteration. The centrality conditions in the interior-point method are reviewed in this section closely follows [3]. 2.1 Logarithmic barrier function for inequality constrained minimization problem The interior-point methods can be used for solving the convex optimization problem that includes inequality constraints, minimize subject to f 0 (x) g i (x) 0, i = 1,..., m (1) where f 0, g 1,..., g m : R n R are convex and twice differentiable. The problem is assumed to be solvable, and we denote the optimal solution as x. The well-known Karush-Kuhn- Tucker (KKT) optimality conditions are satisfied at the optimal x. For introducing the respective notations, the optimality KKT conditions are briefly introduced in the following: There exist dual optimal λ R m, such that the Lagrangian function is stationary at the point x. 1. Feasibility check for constraints: 2. Non-negativity of dual variable λ for inequalities: g i (x ) 0, i = 1,..., m (2) λ 0 (3) 3. Gradient condition: 4. Complementary condition: f 0 (x ) + m λ i g i (x ) = 0 (4) i=1 λ i g i (x ) = 0, i = 1,..., m (5) The idea of the logarithmic barrier function is to approximately formulate the inequality constrained problem (1) as equality constrained problem to which Newton s method can be applied [3]. The logarithmic barrier for the problem (1) is defined as, Φ(x) = m log( g i (x)) (6) i=1 3

4 and the approximated problem is given as, minimize f 0 (x) + 1 t Φ(x) =f 0 (x) + 1 m log( g i (x)) t i=1 (7) where t is a positive parameter. g i (x) 0. The logarithmic barrier (6) grows without bound if 2.2 Central path and centrality conditions The central path associated with problem (1) is defined as the of points x (t), t > 0, which are called central points. The necessary and sufficient conditions characterize points on the central path writes, 0 = f 0 (x (t)) + 1 t φ(x (t)) = f 0 (x (t)) + 1 m 1 t g i (x (t)) g i(x (t)) i=1 (8) We define, λ i (t) = 1, i = 1,..., m (9) tg i (x (t)) and λ i (t) is called dual feasible [3] if the condition (8) holds. We can interpret the central path conditions using the centrality conditions, which can be seen as a continuous deformation of the KKT optimality conditions, g i (x ) 0, i = 1,..., m λ 0 m f 0 (x ) + λ i g i (x ) = 0 i=1 λ i g i (x ) = 1/t, i = 1,..., m (10) The only difference between the KKT conditions and the centrality conditions (8) is that the complementarity condition (5) is replaced by the condition λ i g i (x ) = 1/t. For large t, the centrality conditions is close to the KKT optimality conditions for the optimization problem (1). Figure 1 shows the central path for a linear programming with 7 inequality constraints. At the central point x (t = t k ), the centrality conditions (10) is fulfilled, i.e., the objective gradient f 0 is parallel with the gradient of the logarithmic barrier Φ. 4

5 c x (t ) x (t = t k ) Figure 1: Central path for a linear programming with 7 linear constraints. The dashed curves show three contour lines of the logarithmic barrier function. The dashed line c T x = c T x (t k ) is tangent to the contour line through x (t k ). The central path converges to the optimal point x (t ) [3]. 3 Central path following method based on the modified gradient field for one inequality constraint In the present method, we propose a new way for finding the search direction towards the local minimum. In this section, the central path following method considering one single inequality constraint is introduced. The generalization of the newly proposed approach to deal with multiple constraints is elaborated in section 4. Instead of using the steepest descent direction directly when the constraint is not active, we consider the effect of the constraint and use its gradient to modify the search direction accordingly. The goal is to obtain a search path, which traverses inside the feasible domain to find the local minimum. We propose a modified gradient field s calculated using the normalized objective and constraint gradient as: s = 1 ( f 2 f g ) c ( f g 2 f + g ). (11) g where f is the gradient of the objective function, g is the gradient of the constraint function, and c 1 is a parameter. When c = 1, the modified gradient field s = f f represents the normalized steepest descent direction. With c > 1, we obtain a modified search direction for the design update in each optimization iteration. ( ( ) f Let cos α = and we define γ = cos α as the correlation factor. f ) T g g Obviously, as γ 1 the gradient condition of the centrality conditions (10) are fulfilled. 5

6 3.1 Convergence analysis for a 2D linear constrained optimization problem We proof that for large enough factor c, the search path based on s is close to the central path in the following 2D analytical example, f(x 1, x 2 ) = 1 2 (x2 1 + x 2 2), g(x 1, x 2 ) = x and Ω : g 0. (12) The modified gradient field s reads, Let x 2 = 1 2 where and s = c + 1 f 2 f + 1 c g 2 g { } (13) 1 = 2 (1 + c) x 1, (1 + c) x 2 (c 1) x 2 x x x (x 02 + (x 01) 2 + (x 02) ) 2, the trajectory Γ λ of the modified gradient field s is x 2 + x x 2 x 1 2 = 2 x 2 λ = c 1 c + 1 x λ. (14) (0, 1). (15) Let (x 1,λ, x 2,λ ) be the point in the trajectory Γ λ with maximal x 2 component, then x λ 2,λ = 2 ( ) 1 λ x 2 1 λ 2, (16) 1 + λ x λ λ x 1,λ = x 2 1 λ2 2 x 2 c + 1 λ c c 1. (17) Let c +, then, x 1,λ 0, x 2,λ x 2, the trajectory Γ λ will convergence to curves Γ which is a union of parabola x 2 1 = 4 x 2 2 4x 2 x 2, x 1 (0, x 0 1)( or(x 0 1, 0), ) (18) and an interval (0, x 2 ) on x 2 axis. In figure 2 we show the parabola starting from the initial design (x 0 1, x 0 2) and reaches (0, x 2 ), which lays on the central path illustrated as dotted line. As c +, part of the trajectory Γ λ converges to the central path D numerical examples We apply the proposed method for several 2D analytical optimization problems and solve them numerically. We use the direction of the gradient field s as the search direction and choose a fixed step size for the design updating. The first three examples are convex optimizations, while the last two examples are non-convex optimization problems. 6

7 (0, x 2 ) c = 200 c = 45 c = 15 (x 0 1, x 0 2) x 2 20 c = 5 15 c = x 1 Figure 2: Convergence analysis for the 2D linear constrained optimization problem (12). The black circles show the objective function. The black line is the constraint function. The dotted line is the central path. As c +, part of the trajectory Γ λ based on the proposed gradient field s converges to the central path. 1. 2D optimization problem with quadratic objective function and one linear inequality constraint, f(x 1, x 2 ) = x x 2 2, g(x 1, x 2 ) = 2x 1 x and Ω : g 0. (19) 2. 2D optimization problem with linear objective function and one quadratic inequality constraint, f(x 1, x 2 ) = 0.5x 1 + x 2 10, g(x 1, x 2 ) = 1 20 (x 1 25) 2 x and Ω : g 0. (20) 3. 2D optimization problem with quadratic objective function and one quadratic inequality constraint, f(x 1, x 2 ) = x x 2 2, g(x 1, x 2 ) = 1 20 (x 1 5) 2 x 2 and Ω : g 0. (21) 4. 2D non-convex optimization problem with quadratic objective function and one quadratic inequality constraint with one local optimum, 7

8 1 (x1 3)2 x2 + 3 and Ω : g 0. (22) D non-convex optimization problem with quadratic objective function and one quadratic inequality constraint with two local optimum, f (x1, x2 ) = (x1 2)2 + (x2 2)2, g(x1, x2 ) = f (x1, x2 ) = (x1 2)2 + (x2 2)2, g(x1, x2 ) = 1 (x1 3)2 x and Ω : g 0. (23) 10 (a) c = 1 (b) c = 2 (c) c = 5 (d) c = 10 (e) c = 30 (f) c = 50 Figure 3: Example 1: 2D optimization problem with quadratic objective function and one linear inequality constraint. The gradient flow with different factor c are plotted in blue lines. The red line is the central path. The black contour curves are the objective function and the black line is the linear constraint. 3.3 Numerical results of the 2D optimization problems The results for the 2D optimization problems (19) - (23) using the proposed method are systematically elaborated in the following Numerical result of the example 1 We plot the discrete gradient flow calculated using the proposed method (11) with different parameter c in figure 3. The blue lines show the discrete gradient flow directions. 8

9 The red line is the central path of the given problem. The black contour curves show the objective function. The black line is the constraint function. As can be observed, the bigger the factor c is, the more significant the gradient flow directs to the central path. We use the gradient flow direction as the search direction in each iteration, and the fixed step size is applied. In figure 4 we plot the optimization path for the example 1 with different values for the parameter c. The black contour curves show the objective function. The black line is the constraint function. The black dotted line is the central path. We observe that the bigger the parameter c is, the closer the result converges to the analytical solution for the local optimum. Figure 4: 2D optimizations for the example 1 is plotted. The initial design is (x 1, x 2 ) = (8, 14). The black dotted-line is the central path. Figure 5: 2D optimizations for the example 2 is plotted. The initial design is (x 1, x 2 ) = (0, 55). The black dotted-line is the central path. 9

10 3.3.2 Numerical result of the example 2 and 3 In figure 5 and 6 we plot the optimization path for the example 2 and 3 with different values for the parameter c, respectively. The black line in example 2 and the black circles in example 3 show the respective objective function. The two parabolas are the constraint functions. The two black dotted line are the central paths. Again, we observe that the bigger the parameter c is, the closer the result converges to the analytical solution for the local optimum. Figure 6: 2D optimizations for the example 3 is plotted. The initial design is (x 1, x 2 ) = (24, 20). The black dotted-line is the central path. Figure 7: 2D optimizations for the example 4 is plotted. The initial design is (x 1, x 2 ) = ( 15, 29). The black dotted-line is the central path. 10

11 3.3.3 Numerical result of the example 4 In figure 7 we plot the optimization path for the non-convex optimization example 4 with different value for the parameter c. The black contour circles show the objective function. The black parabola is the constraint function. The black dotted lines are the central paths. Again, we observe that the bigger the parameter c is, the closer the result converges to the analytical local optimum. In figure 8 we plot the optimization path with different initial designs: (x 1, x 2 ) = ( 15, 29) and (x 1, x 2 ) = (20, 20). Both converge to the local optimum. We observe, that the algorithm is able to follow one central path (the right one) and then switch to follow another central path that leads to the local optimum. Figure 8: Optimization paths with parameter c = 10 for the non-convex optimization problem of example 4. The discretized gradient flow are plotted. The red curves show the central paths Numerical result of the example 5 In figure 9 we plot the optimization path for the example 5 with different values for the parameter c. The black contour circles show the objective function. The black parabola is the constraint function, The black dotted lines are the central paths. Since this example is a non-convex optimization problem, there exist two different local minima, which are found using the proposed path following method. Again, we observe that the bigger the parameter c is, the closer the result converges to the analytical local optimum. 4 Central path following method for multiple inequality constraints Inspired by the barrier function defined in (6), the proposed path following method is generalized to tackle multiple inequality constraints. The core idea is to assemble the 11

12 Figure 9: 2D optimizations for the example 5 is plotted. The initial designs are (x 1, x 2 ) = ( 25, 25) and (x 1, x 2 ) = (40, 30). The black dotted-line is the central path. gradient information of all inequality constraint gradients into one single gradient vector. The closer the design is getting to a constraint, the bigger its impact is on the algorithm. In the opposite case, i.e., the further away the design is to a constraint, the less effect of this constraint is given to the modified search direction. In order to include the different impact of the constraints to the proposed algorithm, an individual scaling multiplier is introduced for each constraint gradient in the assembly. In this section, the assembly of multiple constraints is shown, and an approach for computing the scaling factor is proposed. Again, a 2D example is shown to demonstrate the newly developed method. 4.1 Assembled constraint gradient Let the vectors g i (with i = 1 to m) represent the normalized gradients of the i- th inequality constraint. For each constraint g i, we introduce a scaling multiplier s i, respectively. The scaling multiplier s i is calculated according to the function value of the inequality constraint: the closer the constraint value is to 0, the bigger the scaling multiplier is. In this work, inspired by the logarithmic barrier function (6), we propose the computation of the s i as, s i = 1 g i, i = 1,..., m, (24) where a i is the constraint function value. We assemble all normalized constraint gradients to the assembled constraint gradient g a, g a = m s i g i = i=1 m 1 g i, (25) g i i=1 12

13 which has the same form as the gradient of the logarithmic barrier (6) for the inequality constraints, m Φ(x) = 1 (x) g i. (26) g i i=1 Following the proposed gradient field formulation (11), we write the modified gradient field as, s = 1 ( f 2 f g ) a c ( f g a 2 f + g ) a. (27) g a It should be noted that other formulations for the assembled constraint gradient g a are also applicable for the proposed formulation (27). Based on the form (25) we propose a modified version that normalizes each constraint gradient in advance, g a = m 1 g i g i g i. (28) i=1 We show its application with a shape optimization example in the section A 2D optimization example with multiple constraints The 2D analytical optimization problem for demonstrating the proposed method reads as follows: Minimize f = (x 1 2) 2 + (x 2 2) 2, (29) which is subjected to the inequality constraints g i, with i = 1 to 4: g 1 = 2x 1 x (30) g 2 = 1 10 (x 1 3) 2 x (31) g 3 = x (32) g 4 = x (33) In figure 10 we show the discrete gradient flow directions based on the proposed central path following method (27). The proposed method is applied for the 2D multiple constrained optimization example with the duality factor c = As shown in figure 11, starting from three different initial designs, the proposed method can successfully guide the optimization procedure towards the local minimum. The dashed lines represent the different optimization paths, the black lines visualize the four constraints, and the circles illustrate the contours of the objective function. 13

14 (a) c = 1 (b) c = 2 (c) c = 5 (d) c = 10 (e) c = 30 (f) c = 50 Figure 10: 2D optimization problem with quadratic objective function and 4 inequality constraints. The gradient flow with different factor c are plotted in blue lines. The black contour curves show the objective function and the orange lines show the constraints. 5 Vertex Morphing method for node-based shape optimization In the present work, the central path following method is applied for node-based shape optimization with a large number of design variables. Shape optimization is a subset of the structural optimization. The typical problem is to find the optimal shape that minimizes a certain cost function while satisfying given constraints. Typical cost function can be mass, stiffness, and eigenfrequency of the structure. Typical constraints can be geometrical constraint. The node-based shape optimization uses the finite element method (FEM) [16] as the basis for solving the shape optimization problem: it uses the discretized geometry of FEM for the shape description and uses FEM for evaluating the cost function. To robustly deal with complex geometry, the Vertex Morphing method [1][17] is used. It is shortly reviewed in the following. The idea of Vertex Morphing is to control the discrete surface coordinates x = [x1, x2,..., xn ] with design controls s = [s1, s2,..., sn ], filtered by a filter function A(x, x0, r). The filter radius r controls the smoothness of the resulting surface approximated by x. 14

15 Figure 11: 2D multiple constrained optimizations starting from three different initial designs are shown in blue curves. The path following method is used with the duality factor c = The black circles show the contour lines of the objective functions; the remaining black lines show the different constraint functions. The so called forward mapping step using the linear mapping matrix A is defined as follows, x i = A ij s j (34) Similarly, the change of the control δs is mapped onto the change of the design surface δx δx i = A ij δs j (35) The design controls are the design variables of the gradient-based optimization. The number of variables is equivalent to the number of surface coordinates. Following the chain rule of differentiation, the sensitivities of the response J w.r.t. the geometry x are backward mapped to the design control using the adjoint or backward mapping matrix A, with A = A T for regular grids. dj = dj dx j ds i dx j ds i = A ji dj dx j (36) Using equations (35) and (36) the design surface is modified iteratively, ensuring smooth shape updates. 15

16 6 Numerical example of large shape optimization problem The presented method has been tested through several constrained node-based shape optimization problems. For comparison, the gradient projection method [7] is used. The gradient projection method uses the steepest-descent direction as there is no constraint active. After it has identified the active constraints, gradient projection method uses a search direction obtained by solving a subproblem with quadratic cost [8]. 6.1 Mass minimization of a 3D hook with strain-energy inequality constraint The first example is a mass minimization of a 3D hook under static loading as shown in figure 12. A linear elastic analysis is carried out. The Young s Modulus E = 2.068e11P a and the Poisson s ratio µ = 0.29 are assigned as material properties of the hook. The strain-energy 5Nm is set to be the inequality constraint. Figure 12: 3D hook under static pressure loading with fixed support on the top. Figure 13: Optimal hook shape computed by the proposed central path following method. 16

17 Figure 14: Optimal hook shape computed by the gradient projection method. The node-based shape optimization for the 3D hook is carried out, where we choose the surface node coordinates of the discretized hook as design controls (n 25000). The nodal coordinates of the inner hook side, as well as the loading and the support area, are fixed. The path following method is applied for the optimization, and the optimized shape is obtained after 28 steps which is shown in figure 13. The mass of the hook is reduced to 43.64%. For comparison, the gradient projection method is used and the optimized shape is illustrated in figure 14, the mass is reduced to 45.56% after 29 steps. By applying the two methods, we obtain almost the same local minimum. The proposed method achieves a slightly better design concerning the objective value. Although the two methods achieve a similar local minimum, the optimization paths that are taken are different. For comparison, we plot the evolutions for the constraint and objective value for both methods. For the gradient projection method, the zig-zagging effect can be observed in figure 15, where the constraint values are plotted. The objective values are plotted in figure 16 where the zig-zagging effect can again be recognized. constraint value constraint value reference value Number of iterations Figure 15: Constraint evolution plot using the gradient projection method for 3D hook. The evolution of constraint value and objective value using the proposed central path 17

18 following method are plotted in figure 17 and 18, respectively. The designs of each iteration remain in the feasible domain, and the optimization stops when the constraint is getting active at the 28th step. In figure 19 the correlation factor is plotted. As the optimization progresses, the correlation factor gets closer to 1, which indicates the centrality conditions (10) are well fulfilled. 100 objective value [%] Number of iterations Figure 16: Objective evolution plot using the gradient projection method for 3D hook. constraint value constraint value reference value Number of iterations Figure 17: Constraint evolution plot using the central path following method for 3D hook. 6.2 Strain-energy minimization of a 3D shell with geometric constraints The second example is a 3D shell structure under static loading that is illustrated in figure 20. The cylinder shell with a radius R = 10m and a thickness t = 1m is supported with a fixed support at the left bottom edge and a roller support at the right edge. A single point load F = 1e5N is applied at the center of the shell structure. The Young s 18

19 100 objective value [%] Number of iterations Figure 18: Objective evolution plot using the central path following method for 3D hook with the convergence to constraint at the 28th iteration. 1 Correlation factor Number of iterations Figure 19: Correlation factor plot of the central path following method for 3D hook. Modulus E = 2.068e11P a and the Poisson s ratio µ = 0.29 are assigned to the shell as material properties. A linear elastic static analysis is carried out and a co-rotational 3-node shell element based on the Assumed Natural Deviatoric Strain formulation [18] is used. The strain energy is set to be the objective function, while different geometrical constraints are considered. When minimizing the strain energy of the shell structure, its stiffness is improved. The shape of the structure is optimized (number of the design variables n 5500) and the Vertex Morphing method is used. The relative improvement of the objective value smaller than 0.2% in a subsequent step defines the convergence criterion. 19

20 6.2.1 Unconstrained strain energy optimization for 3D shell structure Carrying out the unconstrained optimization with the Vertex Morphing method, where the steepest-descent direction of strain energy objective function with a fixed step size is used as design update, a result can be obtained and it is illustrated in figure 21. After 45 steps the optimization is converged to a local minimum, and the strain energy is decreased to 2.69% of the initial design. Figure 20: 3D shell structure under static loading. Figure 21: Optimal shape for the unconstrained 3D shell optimization problem Constrained strain energy optimization for 3D shell structure with geometric constraints We add two geometrical objects as the constraints for the unconstrained problem as shown in figure 22. We then apply the proposed method to this problem. In particular, we use the form (28) as the assembled constraint gradient. For this, we need to calculate the gradient of 20

21 Figure 22: 3D shell structure with two geometric objects as constraints. the geometrical constraint. In the present work, we derive the gradient of the geometrical constraint as, g x i = d2 x i (37) where d is the distance function from the design variable to the closest point on the geometric constraint. In total, there are approximately 1800 nodes taken as design variables. We have over all about m > 3600 constraints g i, i = 1 to m, since fore each node there are two geometric constraints. The distance function can be computed using the method of nearest neighbor search [19]. The implementation of the present work is done in the open source software KratosMultiphysic [20], where the distance function and its gradient can be efficiently computed. The optimization ends after 45 steps when the upper geometric constraint is active, and the strain energy is reduced to 3.89% of the initial design. As shown in figure 23, the structure morphs towards a local minimum where a violation of the two geometrical constraints is effectively avoided. Again, one can identify the benefit of traversing the interior of the feasible domain in a constrained optimization problem: the overall shape morphs smoothly with the goal of reducing the objective function value and keeping the constraints away from being violated. 21

22 Figure 23: Optimal shape for the 3D shell optimization problem constrained by two geometric objects using the central path following method. 1 Correlation factor Number of iterations Figure 24: Correlation factor plot for the 3D shell optimization problem constrained by two geometric objects. Objective value [%] Number of iterations Figure 25: Objective value plot for the 3D shell optimization problem constrained by two geometric objects. 22

23 In figure 24 the correlation factor of the double geometrical constrained problem is plotted. After 30 steps, the correlation factor remains close to 1 which means that the centrality conditions (10) is well fulfilled. The correlation factor drops drastically at the first step because the initial design is at a local maximum and there is a big change in the objective gradient from the initial design to the first updated design. In figure 25 the evolution of the objective function value for the problem is shown. 7 Conclusions In the present work, a path following method for inequality constrained optimization is developed. We construct a modified search direction in the feasible domain by utilizing the normalized gradient of the objective and constraint functions with a single parameter c. We proof for a 2D analytical problem that the centrality conditions can be approached when c +. Various numerical constrained optimization examples show that the proposed method finds local minimums within certain tolerance by traversing the interior of the feasible domain. The proposed algorithm provides smooth design updates for the inequality constrained optimization problem. The zig-zagging effect of the design updates resulting from the complementary condition compared to active-set strategy can be effectively avoided. The results of the shape optimizations show that the proposed method is very promising when dealing with highly non-linear, large constrained optimization problems. REFERENCES [1] Bletzinger, K.-U., A consistent frame for sensitivity filtering and the vertex assigned morphing of optimal shape. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. (2014) 49: /s [2] Bletzinger K.-U., Shape optimization, in Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics, vol. Volume 2: Solids and Structures, Erwin Stein, Rene de Borst, and T. J. R. Hughes, Eds. 2 ed., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., [3] Boyd, S. and Vandenberghe, L. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, [4] Arora, J. S. Introduction to Optimum Design. Academic Press, 3rd Edition, [5] Gallagher, R.H. and Zienkiewicz, O.C. Optimum Structural Design. John Wiley & Sons, [6] Frank M. and Wolfe P., An algorithm for quadratic programming. Nav. Res. Logist. (1956) 3: /nav [7] Bertsekas, D. P., On the Goldstein-Levitin-Polyak gradient projection method, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control (1976) 21: /TAC [8] Bertsekas, D. P., Nonlinear Programming. Athena scientific Belmont,

24 [9] Nocedal, J. and Wright S. J., Numerical Optimization. Springer-Verlag, 2nd Edition, [10] Najian Asl, N., Shayegan, S., Geiser, A., Hojjat, M. and Bletzinger, K.-U., A consistent formulation for imposing packaging constraints in shape optimization using Vertex Morphing parametrization. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. (2017) 56: /s [11] Potra, F. A. and Wright S. J., Interior-point methods, J. Comput. Appl. Math. (2000) 124: /S (00) [12] Nelder, J. A. and Mead, R., A simplex method for function minimization. Comput. J. (1965) 7: /comjnl/ [13] Karmarkar, N., A new polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming, Combinatorica (1984) 4: /BF [14] Forsgren, A., Gill P. E. and Wright M. H., Interior methods for nonlinear optimization, SIAM review (2002) 44: /S [15] Mehrotra S., On the implementation of a primal-dual interior point method, SIAM J. Optimization (1992) 2: / [16] Zienkiewicz, O. C., Taylor, R.- L., and Zhu, J. Z., The Finite Element Method: Its Basis and Fundamentals. Butterworth-Heinemann, 7th Edition, [17] Hojjat, M., Stavropoulou, E. and Bletzinger, K-U., The Vertex Morphing method for node-based shape optimization. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. (2014) 268: /j.cma [18] Militello, C. and Felippa, C. A., The first ANDES elements: 9-dof plate bending triangles, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. (1991) 93: / (91)90152-V [19] Muja M. and Lowe D., Scalable nearest neighbor algorithms for high dimensional data, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. (2014) 36: /TPAMI [20] KratosMultiphysics, accessed on 12. December