Comparison of early-stage design methods for a two-mode hybrid electric vehicle

Ahn, Kwangsu; Whitefoot, John; Atluri, Vijayalakshmi; Tate, Edward; Papalambros, Panos Y.

doi:10.1109/vppc.2011.6043254

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…MDF may be used to solve the fully-integrated problem (Prob. (10)), 9,160,175 or parts of a sequential design problem. 106 Starting with the simplest case, consider the (potentially multidisciplinary) plant design optimization problem introduced in Fig.…”

Section: A Current Mdo Formulations and Dynamic System Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Dynamic Engineering Systems

Allison

Herber

2013

54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dynamic engineering systems are playing an increasingly important role in society, especially as active and autonomous dynamic systems become more mature and prevalent across a variety of domains. Successful design of complex dynamic systems requires multidisciplinary analysis and design techniques. While multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) has been used successfully for the development of many dynamic systems, the established MDO formulations were developed around fundamentally static system models. We still lack general MDO approaches that address the specific needs of dynamic system design. In this article we review the use of MDO for dynamic system design, identify associated challenges, discuss related efforts such as optimal control, and present a vision for fully integrated design approaches. Finally, we lay out a set of exciting new directions that provide an opportunity for fundamental work in MDO. Nomenclature a(·)= analysis function a, b = example problem parameters α, β = energy domain designations A = state matrix for a linear and time invariant system B = input matrix for a linear and time invariant system c = suspension damping coefficient ε = convergence tolerance f (·)= design objective function f (·)= derivative function f a (·) = algebraic constraint g(·)= design constraint functions g p (·) = physical system constraints γ(t) = algebraic variable vector h i = time step i = time step index j = Gauss-Seidel block index, multiple-shooting time segment index k = iteration counter k s = suspension spring stiffness K = gain matrix K * = optimal gain matrix L(·) = Lagrange or running cost term m = number of Gauss-Seidel coordinate blocks n s = number of states n t = number of time steps n T = number of time segments φ(·) = cost function φ * (·) = optimal-value function (inner loop solution) φ(·) = alternative plant design objective function ψ(·) = Mayer or terminal cost term π(·) = augmented Lagrangian penalty function t = time t F = length of the time horizon t i = time at step i T j = time at the end of time segment j u(t) = control input trajectories u * (t) = optimal control trajectories u i = control input at time step i U = matrix discretization of u(t) x = optimization variable vector x * = optimal solution x k = solution estimate at iteration k x c = control system design variable vector x p = physical system design variable vector x p * = optimal plant design X = Cartesian product of closed convex sets ξ(t) = state variable trajectories ξ * (t) = optimal state trajectories ξ i = state at time step î ξ(t) = subset of state trajectorieṡ ξ(·) = time derivative of ξ(t) Ξ = discretization of ξ(t) Ξ = subset of discretized state trajectories y = coupling variable Y = matrix of initial state values for multiple shooting time segments ζ(·) = defect constraint functions (residuals) ζ i (·) = defect constraint between time segments

show abstract