PROBLEM I

WELDED BEAM DESIGN OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM

Welding can be defined as a process of joining metallic parts by heating to a
suitable temperature with or without the application of pressure.

The welded beam structure shown in Fig.1 is a practical design problem that
has been often used as a bench mark problem. The beam needs to be welded on
another beam and must carry a certain load F. The overhang portion of the beam
has a length of 14 inches and F=6000 lb force applied at the end of the beam. The
objective is to find the best set of design variables to minimise the total
fabrication cost of the structure subject to shear stress (τ ), bending stress (σ ),
buckling load (PC), end deflection (δ ) and side constraints. There are four design
variables, namely thickness of the weld h=x 1 , length of the weld joint l=x 2 ,
width of the beam t=x 3 and thickness of the beam b=x 4 . Therefore the decision
vector is X =(h,l ,t ,b)=( x 1 , x 2 ,x 3 ,x 4 ) .
 The mathematical formulation of the objective function f ( X ) which is the total
fabrication cost mainly comprised of the set-up, welding labour and material cost
is as follows
2
Minimize f (X ) = 1.10471 x 1 x2 + 0.04811 x 3 x 4 (14.0+x 2 )

Subject to g1 ( X )=τ ( X )−τ max≤ 0

g2 ( X )=σ ( X )−σ max ≤ 0

g3 ( X )=x 1−x 4 ≤ 0
2
g4 ( X)=0.10471 x 1 x 2+0.04811 x 3 x 4 (14.0+x 2 )−5.0≤ 0
g5 ( X )=0.125−x 1≤ 0
g6 ( X )=δ( X )−δ max≤ 0
g7 ( X )=P−P c ( X )≤ 0

Where τ is the shear stress in the weld τ max is the allowable shear stress of the
weld (=13600 psi ) , σ the normal stress in the beam, σ max is the allowable normal
stress for the beam material (=30000 psi ) , Pc the bar buckling load and P the load
(=6000 lb) and δ the beam end deflection.

The shear stress τ has two components namely primary stress (τ 1 ) and

secondary stress (τ 2 ) given by √ 2

τ ( X )= τ 1+2 τ 1 τ 2 ( )
x2
2R
2
+τ 2

P
τ1=
√2 x1 x 2
MR
τ 2=
J
 M= P L+ ( ) x2
2
where

√
x 22 x 1 +x 3
( )
2

R= +
4 2

{ [ (
x 22 x 1+ x 3
) ]}
2

J=2 √ 2 x 1 x 2 +
12 2

6PL
σ (X) = 2
x4 x3

4 PL3
δ ( X )= 3
E x3 x 4

Pc ( X )=
4.013 E

L
√
2
x 23 x 64
36
( 1−
x
3

√ )
E
2 L 4G

E= 30 × 106 psi
6
G = 12× 10 psi

Variable regions :

x 1≥ 0.1 , x 2≥ 0.1 , x 3≤10 , x 4 ≤2

The constrain g1 ( X ) make sure that the shear stress developed at the support
location of the beam is smaller than the allowed shear strength of the material
(13600 psi ) . The constrain g2 ( X ) make sure that the normal stress developed at
the support location of the beam is smaller than the allowable yield strength of
the material(30000 psi ) . The constrain g3 ( X ) make sure that thickness of the
beam is not smaller than the weld thickness from a practical stand point. The
constraint g6 ( X ) make sure that the beam end deflection is meant to be smaller
than the allowable end deflection of the material. The constrain g7 ( X ) makes
sure that the allowable buckling load of the beam is more than the applied load F .

REFERENCES:

1. “ Solving Engineering Optimization Problems with the Simple Constrained

Particle Swarm Optimizer “, Leticia C Cagnina and Susana C.Esquivel
Informatica 32(2008) 319-326.
2. “An efficient Metaheuristic Algorithm for Engineering Optimization: SOPT “
O. Hansaneebi and S. Kazemzadeb Azad International Journal of
Optimization in Civil engineering , 2012, 2(4) : 479-487.
3. “Engineering Optimization with Hybrid Particle Swarm and Ant Colony
Optimization” .A Kavesh and S Talatahari, Asian Journal of civil engineering
(Building and Housing) vol: 10, No 6 (2009) pg: 611-628.
4. “Solving Structural Engineering Design Optimization Problems using An
Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm “ Harish Garg , Journal of Industrial and
Management Optimization, vol: 10, No .3, July 2014, pg: 777- 794.
5. “Hybrid Genetic Algorithm with Great Deluge to Solve Constrained
Optimization Problems”,Nabeel Al-Milli, Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Information Technology, 20th January 2014, vol.59, No.2, pg.358-389.
6. “Reactive Service Optimization: Application to Multiobjective Optimization
Problems”, Amir Mosavi, Atieh Vaezipour, Scientific Research, Applied
Mathematics, 2012,3, 1572-1582.
7. Design of Machine Elements by V.B.Bhandari, pg.272-295.
 PROBLEM II

A PRESSURE VESSEL DESIGN PROBLEM

A compressed air storage tank with a working pressure of 1000 psi and a
minimum volume of 750 ft3. A cylindrical pressure vessel is clapped at both ends
of hemispherical heads. Using rolled steel plates, the shell is made in two halves
that are joined by two longitudinal welds to form a cylinder. Each head is forged
and then welded to the shell.

The objective is to minimize the manufacturing cost of the pressure vessel. The
manufacturing cost of the pressure vessel is a combination of material cost,
welding cost and forming cost. Four design variables have to be optimized as
following

x 1 : Which is the thickness of the dish

x 2 : Which is the thickness of the shell

x 3 : Which is the inner radius of the shell

 x 4 : Which is the length of the cylindrical section of the vessel (length of
the shell)

The variables x 1 and x 2 are discrete values which are integer multiples of
0.0625 inch.

The mathematical model of the problem is

2 2 2
f ( x) =0.6224 x 1 x3 x 4 +1,7881 x 2 x 3 +3.1661 x 1 x 4 +19.84 x 1 x 3

Subject to

1 . Hoop stress ≤ Allowable stress

g1 ( x)=−x 1 +0.0193 x3 ≤0

2 , Longitudinal stress ≤ Allowable stress

g2 ( x)=−x 2 +0.00954 x 3≤0

3
3. Volume ≤ 750∗1728 inch
4
g3 ( x )= 1 ,296 , 000 −π x23 x 24 − π x 33≤0
3

4 . Length

g4 (x )= x 4 −240≤0

With variable bounds

x 1≥ 0.0625
 x 2 ≤ 99∗0.0625

x 3 ≥ 10

x 4 ≤ 200

PROBLEM III

SPEED REDUCER (GEAR TRAIN) DESIGN

The toothed are used as independent units to reduce or increase the speed and
they are enclosed in rigid closed housings. The housings provide support for the
shafts , hold lubricants inside, protect the gears from dust and moisture and give
necessary cooling surface to dissipate the heat generated. When the unit is used
as a speed reducing device, it is called speed reducer. Speed reducers are widely
used for reduction of speed in turbine generator set, from motor to machine
tools, in rolling mills from engine to road wheels in automobiles etc.

The design of the speed reducer is considered with the face width (b) , module of
teeth (m), number of teeth on pining (z), length of shaft 1 between bearings (l 1) ,
length of the shaft 2 between bearings (l 2), diameter of the shaft 1 (d1), diameter
of shaft 2 (d2) respectively. The constraints include limitations on the bending
stress of gear teeth, surface stress, transverse deflections of shaft 1 and 2 due to
transmitted force, and stresses in shafts 1 and 2. The objective is to minimise the
total weight of the speed reducer. The weight of the speed reducer includes both
the weight of the gears as well as the weight of the shafts.
DESIGN VARIABLES
 width of gear ( x1 )
b - Face

teeth module ( x2 )
m -

- Number of pining teeth ( x3 )

z
l 1 - Length of shaft 1 between bearings ( x4)

l 2 - Length of shaft 2 between bearings ( x5 )

d 1 - Diameter of shaft 1 ( x6 )
d 2 - Diameter of shaft 2 ( x7 )

Optimization problem is defined as

Minimise : F (Gear box weight )

Subject to : g1 (bending stress of gear tooth) ≤ 0.0

g2 (contact stress of gear tooth) ≤ 0.0
g3, , g 4 (transverse deflection of shafts 1,2 ) ≤ 0.0
g5, , g6 (stresses in shafts 1,2 ) ≤ 0.0
g7 − g 9 (dimensional restrictions)
g10 , g11 (dimension requirements on the shafts)
CONSTANTS :

C1 0.7854
C2 3.3333
C3 14.9334
C4 43.0934
C5 1.508
C6 7.4777
 C7 27
C8 397.5
C9 1.93
C 10 745
C 11 16.9*106
C 12 0.1
C 13 1100
C 14 157.5*106
C 15 850
C 16 40
C 17 5
C 18 12
C 19 1.5
C 20 1.9
C 21 1.1

F ( b, m, z , l1 , l2 , d1 , d 2 )= C1 b m2 ( C2 z 2+C 3 z −C 4 )− C5 ( d 21 +d 22 )
+C 6 (d 1 + d 2 )+C 1 ( l1 d 1 + l2 d 2 )
3 3 2 2

F(objective) = C 1 x 1 x 22 (C 2 x 23 + C 3 x3 −C 4 )− C 5 ( x 26 + x27 ) +C 6 ( x 36 + x 37 ) +C 1 ( x 4 x 26 + x 5 x 27 )

F(objective) = 0.7854 x 1 x 22 (3.3333 x 23 + 14.9334 x3 −43.0934 )− 1.508 ( x26 +x 27 )

+7.4777 ( x 36 + x37 ) +0.7854 ( x 4 x 26 + x 5 x 27 )
CONSTRAINTS

Upper bound on the bending stress of the gear tooth

C7
cons 1 : 2
−1≤ 0
bm z
 27
cons 1 : 2
−1≤ 0
bm z

Upper bound on the contact stress of the gear tooth

C8
cons 2 : 2 2
−1≤ 0
bm z
397.5
cons 2 : 2 2
−1≤ 0
bm z

Upper bounds on the transverse deflection of shaft 1

3
C9 l 1
cons 3 : 4
−1≤ 0
mzd 1

3
1.93 l1
cons 3 : 4
−1≤ 0
m z d1

Upper bounds on the transverse deflection of shaft 2

3
C 9 l2
cons 4 : 4
−1≤ 0
m z d2
3
1.93 l2
cons 4 : 4
−1≤ 0
mzd 2

Constraint on stress in the gear shaft 1

 cons 6 :
√( 745 l1 2
mz )
+ 157 . 5×10

0.21 d 1
3
6

≤ 850

cons 5 :
√( 745 l 1
m z )
+ 16 . 9×10

0.1 d
3
1
6

≤ 1100

Constraint on

stress in the gear shaft 2

√( )
2
C10 l1
+C 14
m z
cons 6 : 3
≤ C 15
C12 d 1

√
Dimensional restrictions based on
745space
l 2 and experience

cons 6 :
( mz )
1
+ 157.5×10
6

≤ 850
(constraints: 7 – 9)
3
0 . 1 d1
mz
cons 7 : −1 ≤ 0
C 16

mz
cons 7 : −1 ≤ 0
40

C17 m
cons 8 : −1 ≤ 0
b
 5 m
cons 8 : −1 ≤ 0
b

b
cons 9 : −1 ≤0
C18 m
b
cons 9 : −1 ≤0
12 m

Design requirements on the shafts based on experience

(constraints - 10, 11)

cons 10 : C 19 d 1+ C 20 ≤ l1
cons 10 : 1.5 d 1 + 1.9 ≤ l1
cons 11 : C 21 d 2 + C20 ≤ l2
cons 11 : 1.1 d 2 + 1.9 ≤ l2
Explicit bounds on design variable :

2 .6 ≤ b ≤ 3.6

0.7 ≤ m ≤ 0.8
17 ≤ z ≤ 28

7.3 ≤ l1 ≤ 8.3
7.3 ≤ l2 ≤ 8.3
2.9 ≤ d 1 ≤ 3.9
5.0 ≤ d 2 ≤ 5.5
Mathematical formulation:
The mathematical formulation of the objective function f ( X ) is to minimise the
weight of the speed reducer subject to the constraints of the gear teeth, surface
stress, transverse deflections of the shafts and stresses in the shaft. The problem
is:
Minimize :

f ( X ) = 0.7854 x 1 x 22 (3.3333 x32 + 14.9334 x 3 −43.0934 )− 1.508 ( x 26 +x 27 )

+7.4777 ( x 36 + x37 ) +0.7854 ( x 4 x 26 + x 5 x 27 )
subject to

27
g1 ( X ) = −1 ≤ 0
x1 x2 x3 2

397 . 5
g2 ( X ) = −1≤0
x1 x2 x32 2

1.93 x 4 3

g3 ( X ) = −1≤ 0
x2 x3 x6 4

1.93 x 5 3

g4( X ) = −1≤ 0
x2 x3 x7 4

g5 ( X ) =
1
110 x 6 3
√( x2 x3 )
745 . 0 x 4 2 6
+ 16 . 9×10 − 1 ≤ 0

g6 ( X ) =
1
85 x 7 3
√( 745.0 x5 2
x2 x3 ) 6
+ 157.5×10 − 1 ≤ 0
 x2 x3
g7 ( X ) = −1 ≤ 0
40
5 x2
g8 ( X ) = −1 ≤ 0
x1
x1
g9 ( X ) = −1 ≤ 0
12 x 2

1.5 x 6 + 1.9
g10 ( X ) = −1≤ 0
x4
1.1 x 7 + 1.9
g11 ( X ) = −1 ≤ 0
x5
Explicit bounds on design variable :

2.6 ≤ x 1 ≤ 3.6

0.7 ≤ x 2 ≤ 0.8
17 ≤ x3 ≤ 28
7.3 ≤ x 4 ≤ 8.3
7.3 ≤ x 5 ≤ 8.3
2.9 ≤ x 6 ≤ 3.9
5.0 ≤ x 7 ≤ 5.5

PROBLEM IV

Spring problem