Global optimal actuator placement for adaptive structures: New formulation and benchmarking
Source abstract
Abstract
Civil structures are often overdesigned to meet safety and functionality criteria under rare, strong events. Adaptive structures, however, can modify their response through sensing and actuation to satisfy design criteria more efficiently with better material utilization, which results in lower resource consumption and associated environmental impacts. Adaptation is performed through actuators integrated into the structural layout. Several methods exist for optimal actuator placement to control displacements and internal force flow. In discrete systems like trusses and frames, actuator placement is typically a binary assignment. Most existing methods use bilevel and heuristic formulations, leading to suboptimal solutions without proving global optimality. This paper introduces a Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) method that produces global optimum solutions by optimizing both actuator placement and commands. Two objective functions are used: minimizing the number of actuators and minimizing control energy. The optimization considers structural and serviceability limits and control feasibility. An extensive benchmark compares the new formulation’s global optima with solutions from greedy, stochastic, and heuristic methods. Results show that the new method consistently produces higher-quality solutions than all other methods benchmarked in this study.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Structural Analysis and Optimization · Aeroelasticity and Vibration Control · Topology Optimization in Engineering
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Institute for Lightweight Structures and Conceptual Design (ILEK), University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
References (57)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1983)109:3(628)10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1983)109:3(628) ↗
2. 10.1177/107754631349411310.1177/1077546313494113 ↗
3. Bertsimas D · 1998
4. 10.3389/fbuil.2022.81491110.3389/fbuil.2022.814911 ↗
5. 10.1109/COASE.2019.884306610.1109/COASE.2019.8843066 ↗
6. 10.1109/AIM43001.2020.915899610.1109/AIM43001.2020.9158996 ↗
7. Canny KA · Journal of Bridge Engineering (ASCE) · 2024
8. Chipperfield AJ, Fleming PJ (1995) The MATLAB genetic algorithm toolbox10–10.10.1049/ic:19950061 ↗
9. 10.1109/SII58957.2024.1041748010.1109/SII58957.2024.10417480 ↗
10. 10.1016/S0045-7825(99)00389-810.1016/S0045-7825(99)00389-8 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.amc.2009.02.04410.1016/j.amc.2009.02.044 ↗
12. 10.1088/1361-665X/ac24ef10.1088/1361-665X/ac24ef ↗
13. 10.1088/1361-665X/ac6afa10.1088/1361-665X/ac6afa ↗
14. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2005) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (No. EN 1998-1). Brussels.
15. 10.1007/BF0175882210.1007/BF01758822 ↗
16. 10.3389/fbuil.2020.0009410.3389/fbuil.2020.00094 ↗
17. Gurobi Optimization LLC (2020) Gurobi optimizer reference manual (2020). https://docs.gurobi.com/projects/optimizer/en/current/
18. 10.1088/0964-1726/1/1/00310.1088/0964-1726/1/1/003 ↗
19. 10.1038/s41598-023-30274-y10.1038/s41598-023-30274-y ↗
20. 10.3389/fbuil.2022.70543410.3389/fbuil.2022.705434 ↗
21. Mueller J (2014) The MATLAB surrogate model toolbox for computationally expensive black-box global optimization problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.4261.
22. 10.3390/civileng303004710.3390/civileng3030047 ↗
23. 10.1017/S030500410003040110.1017/S0305004100030401 ↗
24. 10.1007/s10107-016-1036-010.1007/s10107-016-1036-0 ↗
25. 10.1002/9780470715703.ch610.1002/9780470715703.ch6 ↗
26. 10.1016/0045-7825(91)90183-710.1016/0045-7825(91)90183-7 ↗
27. 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.000064810.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000648 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.compstruc.2023.10714910.1016/j.compstruc.2023.107149 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.jsv.2024.11836210.1016/j.jsv.2024.118362 ↗
30. 10.1061/JSENDH.STENG-1232010.1061/JSENDH.STENG-12320 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2022.11162910.1016/j.ijsolstr.2022.111629 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.12.04210.1016/j.engstruct.2009.12.042 ↗
33. 10.1002/stc.410.1002/stc.4 ↗
34. 10.1007/s40999-022-00784-310.1007/s40999-022-00784-3 ↗
35. Senatore G · Journal of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures · 2011 · 52 · 8
36. 10.1088/1361-665X/aa8cb810.1088/1361-665X/aa8cb8 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.05710.1016/j.engstruct.2018.03.057 ↗
38. 10.1007/s00158-019-02224-810.1007/s00158-019-02224-8 ↗
39. 10.3389/fbuil.2020.0010510.3389/fbuil.2020.00105 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.cma.2023.11671010.1016/j.cma.2023.116710 ↗
41. 10.5459/bnzsee.33.3.387-40210.5459/bnzsee.33.3.387-402 ↗
42. 10.3389/fbuil.2020.0008310.3389/fbuil.2020.00083 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.11467010.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114670 ↗
44. United Nations Environment Programme (2014) Sand, rarer than one thinks. UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS), March 2014. https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Mar2014_Sand_Mining.pdf
45. United Nations Environment Programme (IEA) (2022) Global status report for buildings and construction. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/41679/Annual_Report_2022.pdf?sequence=3
46. Utku S · 1998
47. 10.7712/150123.9824.45088810.7712/150123.9824.450888 ↗
48. 10.1515/auto-2017-009910.1515/auto-2017-0099 ↗
49. 10.3389/fbuil.2020.0009310.3389/fbuil.2020.00093 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.compstruc.2020.10626610.1016/j.compstruc.2020.106266 ↗
51. 10.1007/s00158-021-02899-y10.1007/s00158-021-02899-y ↗
52. Wang Y · arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.6271 · 2014
53. 10.1177/1077546321100048310.1177/10775463211000483 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2022.09.00210.1016/j.arcontrol.2022.09.002 ↗
55. 10.1088/0964-1726/11/4/30310.1088/0964-1726/11/4/303 ↗
56. 10.23919/ACC53348.2022.986766410.23919/ACC53348.2022.9867664 ↗
57. 10.1109/TMECH.2023.327731710.1109/TMECH.2023.3277317 ↗