Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.

198 (2009) 631–643

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cma

Fuzzy multiobjective optimization of mechanical structures

F. Massa *, B. Lallemand, T. Tison
Laboratoire d’Automatique de Mécanique et d’Informatique industrielles et Humaines, Université de Valenciennes et du Hainaut Cambrésis,
Le Mont Houy B.P. 311, 59313 Valenciennes, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper proposes a method that takes imperfections in multiobjective optimization problems into
Received 12 December 2007 account. The main objective is to determine a feasible design space for fuzzy design variables that
Received in revised form 18 September respects fuzzy restriction rules and optimizes the defuzzified objective functions. The proposed method
2008
uses the Fuzzy Finite Element Method (FFEM) to calculate fuzzy solutions (namely displacements and fre-
Accepted 19 September 2008
Available online 1 October 2008
quencies) and genetic algorithms for exploring the design space of fuzzy design variables. These elements
are explained in detail and then applied to design a drop-tower impactor sled defined with imperfections.
Ó 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Imperfection
Fuzzy sets
Multiobjective optimization
Genetic algorithm
Computer-aided design

1. Introduction els. Many multiobjective optimization methods are currently used

Nowadays, numerical simulations have become an essential
part of the design phase for mechanical structures. With determin-
istic procedures, design variables are implicitly considered to be
precisely known. However, in reality, this is not the case. In fact,
the characteristics of manufactured structures are not always the
same, and several kinds of deficiency can be identified at different
steps of their production. These deficiencies can be defined by the
term ‘‘imperfection”. Two classes can be distinguished: Variability
refers to the variation inherent to the physical system or the envi-
ronment under consideration (geometric or material characteris-
tics and manufacturing tolerances). Uncertainty is a potential
deficiency in any phase or activity of the modelling process that
is due to lack of knowledge (for example joints between two sub-
systems). In order to take such imperfections into account, several
theories, both probabilistic and non-probabilistic, can be applied.
Among the available non-probabilistic theories, the fuzzy set
theory allows parametric imperfections to be managed in order
to quantify the influence of imperfections on mechanical solutions.
In this context, different fuzzy methods (e.g., TEEM [1,2], PAEM [3],
Transformation [4,5]) have been developed to propagate imperfec-
tions in static, modal and dynamic analyses and to aggregate the
behavioral changes of the finite element structures. These meth-
ods, which belong to the category of Fuzzy Finite Element Methods
(FFEM) [6], combine the fuzzy formalism with finite element mod-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 327511459; fax: +33 327511317.
E-mail address: franck.massa@univ-valenciennes.fr (F. Massa).
during the design phase to improve the performance and robust-
ness of mechanical structures. However, given the imperfections
described above, these deterministic methods cannot be used clas-
sically to solve multiobjective optimization problems.
Fuzzy set theory has already been used for the multiobjective
optimization of mechanical systems and structural designs. For
example, Wang and Wang [7] used a level-cuts approach to solve
non-linear structural problems with only fuzzy constraints. Rao
[8] used continuous membership functions for fuzzy constraints
and fuzzy objectives to optimize academic mechanical systems
and structural designs. Kelesoglu [9] has proposed a method for
fuzzy multiobjective optimization of space trusses, and Ramík
[10] has developed a class of fuzzy optimization problems with
an objective function depending on fuzzy parameters. Though
the above studies have led to many numerical advances, they do
not take all of the imperfections associated with the data used in
multiobjective optimization problems into account. In general,
these studies apply non-deterministic methods to academic prob-
lems, such as analytical or truss models.
This paper proposes a method that allows the parametric
imperfections in multiobjective optimization problems to be taken
into account via the fuzzy formalism. The optimization problem is
solved by using global method namely genetic algorithms. The
originality of the proposed method is that each generated individ-
ual are not deterministic but defined by fuzzy numbers. These fuz-
zy data represent the design variables of the problem (for example
thicknesses of plates) and the parameters, which present some
deficiency during the industrial or experimental process (for

0045-7825/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cma.2008.09.010
632 F. Massa et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2009) 631–643

example Young modulus, density or loads). Moreover, the equality sidered as an extension of the classic set theory. A membership de-
and inequality constraints functions applied on mechanical solu- gree, varying between 0 and 1, is associated to the different values
tions (displacements and frequencies) are modelled as fuzzy ramps of the non-deterministic parameters. In this context, each parame-
to traduce the acceptable variability domain. Finally, by including ter is defined using a membership function that can take different
this fuzzy formalism, the objective is now to find the fuzzy design forms depending on the kind of imperfection considered. Fig. 1
variables that will optimize the fuzzy objective functions defined presents the different forms of fuzzy numbers or fuzzy intervals
by the fuzzy constraint functions. currently in use.
In the next section, the formulation of general multiobjective Using the fuzzy set theory, the multiobjective optimization
optimization problems and the definition of fuzzy numbers are re- problem can be rewritten as follows:
viewed, and the fuzzy formalism is introduced into the optimiza-
tion problem. Section 3 describes the different fuzzy data used to Minimize defuzð e F ðe p np ; e
p1 ; . . . ; e q1; . . . ; e
q nq ÞÞ
define the fuzzy design variables, the fuzzy objective functions Subject to e e e e e
g iðp1; . . . ; pn ; q1; . . . ; qn Þ # R e i ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; I ð2Þ
p q
and the fuzzy constraints functions. Section 4 explains how the
membership functions of fuzzy design variables are updated. This p1; . . . ; e
with e p np
update step exploits the concept of feedback from fuzzy solutions e i are, respectively, the fuzzy de-
where e p np , e
p1; . . . ; e q1; . . . ; e
q nq and R
to define the fuzzy design variables and then identifies those up-
sign variables, which defines the initial design space, the fuzzy
dated fuzzy design variables that respect the fuzzy constraint func-
imprecise parameters, which represents the poorly defined data of
tions. Section 5 focuses on the exploration of the design space of
the problem, and the fuzzy restriction rules. These different fuzzy
fuzzy design variables using a genetic algorithm and on the selec-
data are completely defined in Section 3. The goal of this kind of
tion of the best updated fuzzy design variables from the pool of
problem is now to determine the feasible design space that is de-
these design variables. The best updated fuzzy design variables
scribed by the membership functions of fuzzy design variables
are used to optimize the fuzzy objective functions. Section 6 dem-
p1 ; . . . ; e
e p np . These fuzzy design variables optimize the defuzzified
onstrates the efficiency of the proposed method for designing large
objective functions defuzð e p np ; e
p1 ; . . . ; e
F ðe q1; . . . ; e
q nq ÞÞ and respect
structures with imperfections.
the inclusion of the fuzzy constraint functions
g iðe
e p np ; e
p1 ; . . . ; e q1; . . . ; e
q nq Þ in the fuzzy restriction rules R e i . For fuzzy
2. The fuzzy multiobjective optimization problem optimization problem, the global objective function may be defined
as previously after having defuzzified each fuzzy objective function.
A general multiobjective optimization problem can be mathe- The operator ‘‘defuz” refers to the defuzzification step described in
matically formulated as: Section 5. Further developments will use fuzzy logic to define the
Minimize Fðp1 ; . . . ; pnp Þ ¼ ff1 ðp1 ; . . . ; pnp Þ; . . . ; fno ðp1 ; . . . ; pnp Þg fuzzy weights of the different objective functions.
k 6 pk 6 pk with k ¼ 1; . . . ; np
Subject to g i ðp1 ; . . . ; pnp Þ 6 0; i ¼ 1; . . . ; Ip
3. Description of the fuzzy optimization problem’s data
ð1Þ
where f1 ðp1 ; . . . ; pnp Þ; . . . ; fno ðp1 ; . . . ; pnp Þ are the individual objective This section focuses on the different kinds of fuzzy data used in
functions; g i ðp1 ; . . . ; pnp Þ are the inequality (or equality) constraint the fuzzy optimization problem, namely fuzzy design variables,
functions; pk and p k are, respectively, the lower and upper bounds fuzzy imprecise parameters, fuzzy solutions and fuzzy restriction
of parameter pk; and no, np and I are, respectively, the number of rules. The objective of the section is to define these data and to ex-
objective functions, design parameters and constraint functions. plain how imperfections can be identified and/or quantified and
The goal of this problem is to find the design variables p1 ; . . . ; pnp represented by fuzzy numbers.
that optimize a vector of the objective functions Fðp1 ; . . . ; pnp Þ for
the feasible design space defined by the constraint functions. The 3.1. Fuzzy design variables
different objectives functions fk may be antagonistic and that it
may not always be possible to find a common set of design param- Fuzzy design variables p e1 ; . . . ; e
p np (Fig. 2) characterize the initial
eters that minimizes them all simultaneously. In this case, a global design space. A fuzzy design variable is modelled as a triangular
objective function is defined as a linear combination of each objec- fuzzy number, whose crisp value corresponds to a previous or ini-
tive function. tial design and whose support represents the authorized range of
In order to take imperfections into account, the fuzzy formalism variation, defined by the design variable bounds p k and pk with
is used. Introduced by Zadeh [11–14], fuzzy set theory can be con- k = 1, . . ., np. At the design stage, only three data (nominal value

Fig. 1. Current membership function forms: (a) triangular; (b) trapezoid.

 F. Massa et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2009) 631–643
Fig. 2. Description of fuzzy design variables.
and bounds of each design variables) are available, triangular
membership functions are so the simplest and common choice.
Therefore, these fuzzy numbers allow to introduce more flexi-
bility in the optimization process. The form of the membership
function can authorise more or less important variations on the de-
sign parameter. By using the different forms presented in Fig 3, the
designer can control the optimization process. For example, if the
previous membership functions are associated to dimensions of a
structure, the membership function (Fig. 3a) corresponds to a
dimension, which is difficult to realize around the nominal value.
The second case (Fig. 3b) corresponds to a dimension, which can
be realized more precisely and easily. The last case (Fig. 3c) corre-
sponds to a intermediary case; that is to say that the designer do
not prejudge the realization.
During the optimization process, these data are first updated,
thus generating the updated fuzzy design variables, which verify
the constraint functions. Then, the different updated fuzzy design
variables are evaluated by genetic algorithms in order to select
the best design. These best updated fuzzy design variables are used
to optimize the fuzzy objective functions. The updating and selec-
tion steps are described in Sections 4 and 5, respectively.
3.2. Fuzzy imprecise parameters
Fuzzy imprecise parameters q e1 ; . . . ; e
q nq are used to represent
poorly defined data, notably material properties or geometric char-
acteristics (Fig. 4a). For example, the Young modulus for standard
steel is generally fixed at 2  1011 N/m2, but can vary between
1.9  1011 N/m2 and 2.1  1011 N/m2. For this reason, it is more
acceptable to describe this kind of data with fuzzy numbers rather
than use a deterministic description. When determining the Young
Fig. 3. Different forms of fuzzy design variables.
633
modulus experimentally, measurement errors are inevitable,
reaching nearly 10% in vibrometric experimental analyses, for
example. Fuzzy imprecise parameters can also be defined using or-
dinary intervals (Fig. 4b), which allow an identical range of param-
eter variation to be imposed for each degree of membership a.
Different membership functions can so be chosen (triangular, p-
shape, trapezoidal...) to model the perception of the user. It is
important to note that the choice of the membership function is
a way to influence the final feasible design space. The form of
membership functions of fuzzy solutions is dependant of the form
of membership functions of input parameters.
3.3. Fuzzy solutions
Fuzzy output solutions es 1 ; . . . ; es ns define the fuzzy constraint
functions e g iðe p np ; e
p1 ; . . . ; e q1; . . . ; e
q nq Þ. These data are calculated di-
rectly from the fuzzy design variables e p1; . . . ; e
p np and fuzzy impre-
cise parameters e q1; . . . ; eq nq for the different mechanical analyses
(e.g., static or dynamic) using a fuzzy finite element method
(FFEM) whose objective is to propagate the imperfections identi-
fied in the input data towards the output data.
Computing with fuzzy numbers requires a convention on how
to handle the combination of fuzzy numbers that’s why an appro-
priate t-norm has to be chosen. This work applies the t-min norm,
which is by far the most widely adopted t-norm in fuzzy numer-
ical analysis. Its main benefit is that by applying the t-min norm
within the Zadeh’s extension principle [11], the numerical result
of a combination of fuzzy variables can be calculated using the
a-sublevel technique. The membership functions of the fuzzy
parameters were transformed into a set of intervals. In a previous
article [3], we proposed an FFEM, called the Padé approximants
with extrema management (PAEM) method, to propagate the
imperfections for each a-cut level. This method is summarized
briefly in Annexe A. The PAEM method uses sensitivity techniques
and high-order approximations to calculate fuzzy solutions
es 1 ; . . . ; es ns for static and modal analyses. This method requires that
the membership function be discretized according to the degree
of membership. The problem is then transformed into an interval
problem for each a-cut level to define the initial discretized de-
sign space.
The PAEM strategy follows a two-step procedure:
 A search for parameter combinations, which implies minimum
and maximum variations, is performed for each a-cut level.
The sensitivity of the studied solutions is evaluated between
each level to determine the evolution of the response function.
 The modified solutions are approximated for each selected com-
bination. A high-order approximation using Padé rational func-
tions is required in order to decrease the calculation time and
maintain a good level of accuracy. (More information about
Padé rational functions can be found in the previous study by
Massa et al. [3].)
634 F. Massa et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2009) 631–643

Fig. 4. Description of fuzzy imprecise parameters.

Fig. 5. Graphical representation of the PAEM method in the design space.

The calculation of the parameter value combinations in the

PAEM method is represented graphically in Fig. 5 for the case of
two parameters.

3.4. Fuzzy solutions

e i (Fig. 6) are constraints applied to fuzzy

Fuzzy restriction rules R
solutions and are defined in terms of the structural specifications.
These restrictions cannot be handled deterministically, since the
input data (i.e., design variables and imprecise parameters) are
themselves fuzzy. For example, the yield stress of standard steel
is generally set at 350 MPa, but can vary between 340 MPa and
360 MPa. For this reason, the restriction rules are defined using a
fuzzy formalism that allows a certain degree of acceptability to
be incorporated into the design. Fig. 6 illustrates a situation in
which there are three domains of acceptability: poor performance Fig. 6. Definition of fuzzy restriction rules.
corresponds to a degree of membership of 0, acceptable perfor-
mance corresponds to a degree between 0 and 1, and good perfor-
mance corresponds to a degree of 1. This situation represents a fuzzy restriction rules. The information included in the fuzzy solu-
gradation around a reference value. tions’ membership functions is exploited directly.
The membership functions of the fuzzy solutions represent
4. Updating the fuzzy design variables structural behavior variations. Thus, an a-cut level of design vari-
ables can be associated to an a-cut level of fuzzy solutions and vice
This section explains how the membership functions of fuzzy versa. In this way, the process exploits the concept of feedback
design variables can be updated according to fuzzy solutions and from fuzzy solutions to define the fuzzy design variables.
 F. Massa et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2009) 631–643 635

Practically, this updating process is organized in three steps:
 Superposition of the fuzzy restriction rules on fuzzy solutions.
The fuzzy restriction rules are superimposed on the membership
functions of the fuzzy solutions. The intersection of the fuzzy
restriction rules and the fuzzy solutions defines two a-cut lim-
its: LGA (good-acceptable limit) and LAP (acceptable-poor limit)
for each fuzzy solution (Fig. 7). These a-cut limits represent
the boundaries of the different degrees of acceptability.
 Determination of the final degrees of acceptability.
Since the limits LGA and LAP can be different for each ‘‘rule/solu-
tion” couple, some final acceptability limits, noted LFGA and LFAP ,
must be defined. The maximum limits, chosen so that all the
restrictions are respected, are defined using Eq. (3)
n o
LFGA ¼ max L1GA ; . . . ; LIGA
n o
LFAP ¼ max L1AP ; . . . ; LIAP
are as close as possible to 1 and 0, respectively, (Fig. 9) an iterative
process is employed.
The updated fuzzy design variable’s membership functions
(Fig. 10) represent the feasible design space that respects the inclu-
sion of fuzzy constraint functions in the fuzzy restriction rules.
Fig. 11 illustrates the result of this updating step for the case of
two design variables. The larger square presents the initial design
space defined by the bounds of the design variables p k and pk with
k = 1, . . ., np. In this design space, the range of solution acceptability
(good solutions, acceptable solutions, poor solutions) is presented
in shades of gray, and the solution acceptability is defined using
the fuzzy restriction rules. The central squares represent the feasi-
ble design spaces of the updated fuzzy design variables. These
ð3Þ

 Determination of the updated fuzzy design variable sets.

The two final limits, LFGA and LFAP , are superimposed on the mem-
bership functions of the fuzzy design variables. If no fuzzy impre-
cise parameter has been defined, the membership functions of the
updated fuzzy design variables can be obtained directly. These
functions are constructed so that the interval of membership for
a = 0 corresponds to the interval of limit LFAP and the interval of
membership for a=1 to the interval of limit LFGA (Fig. 8). However,
if the problem includes imprecise parameters, the solution cannot
be obtained directly because the obtained limits do not take all the
bounds of fuzzy imprecise parameters into account. To update the
design variable membership functions so that the LGA and LAP limits Fig. 9. Updating the fuzzy solution’s membership functions.

Fig. 7. Application of fuzzy restriction rules to fuzzy solutions.

Fig. 8. Updating the fuzzy design variable’s membership functions.

636 F. Massa et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2009) 631–643
Fig. 10. Description of updated design variable’s membership function.
design spaces can be qualified as acceptable and/or good in terms
of the membership degree of the solution. These feasible design
spaces contain all the values of design variables for which the fuzzy
constraints functions have been verified.
5. Selecting the updated fuzzy design variables
As Fig. 12 shows, the location of feasible design space is directly
dependant on the nominal value of the fuzzy design variables. So,
by using a variety of nominal values to define the fuzzy design
variables and by applying the updating step presented above, the
initial design space can be completely explored. The objective of
this section is to determine the best feasible design space in order
to provide the designer with a set of design values (i.e., the best
Fig. 11. Illustration of the design space of fuzzy design variables and updated fuzzy design variables.
feasible design set) that verify the constraint functions, while also
taking the possible imperfections of fuzzy imprecise parameters
into account.
Different updated fuzzy design variables are built by changing
the nominal values of initial fuzzy design variables and then select-
ing the design variables that best optimize the fuzzy objective
functions (e.g., minimum cost, minimum mass or maximum
robustness). The best design space is then defined using the best
updated fuzzy design variables.
Using the genetic algorithm proposed by Holland [15], the
above strategy can be automated to allow a great number of pos-
sible feasible design spaces to be explored. Genetic algorithms sim-
ulate natural evolutionary processes by using the main classic
operators: crossover, mutation and selection. The use of fuzzy data
does not completely modify the classic genetic algorithm and oper-
ators (see Appendix B for a brief review of GA). For the case pre-
sented here, the different generations are composed of
individuals defined with fuzzy design variables, which constitute
the individual’s chromosomes. The genes of each chromosome
are the different values that can be used as the nominal values of
fuzzy design variables. Since the selection operator is defined with
a deterministic value, the fuzzy objective functions must necessar-
ily be defuzzified, which is accomplished classically using the
method ‘‘center of gravity” or ‘‘area” of the membership functions
[16].
The Fig. 13 superimposes the feasible design space obtained
with the initial nominal value and one of feasible design space ob-
tained after genetic algorithm. The new feasible design space is lo-
cated in the lower left of the initial design space. This figure
highlights the evolution of the feasible design space in function
of updated fuzzy design variables and nominal value of the fuzzy
 F. Massa et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2009) 631–643 637

Fig. 12. Design space exploration of fuzzy design variables.

Fig. 13. Description of the feasible design space obtained with the genetic algorithm.
638 F. Massa et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2009) 631–643

design variables. By using different nominal values to define the
fuzzy design variables, we explore the initial design space with
success to find the best updated design space.
The next section presents an industrial test case in which the
proposed fuzzy multiobjective optimization method was applied.
6. Numerical application
A study of the strategy presented above was completed on a
drop-tower impactor sled currently used for dynamic compres-
sion and bending tests. The general goal was to improve the
overall mechanical performance of this structure while reducing
manufacturing costs. In fact, the designer wanted the new ver-
sion of the impactor sled to respect certain specifications, nota-
bly a maximal displacement less than 1 mm and a first
eigenfrequency greater than 250 Hz. In addition, the designer
wanted the impactor sled to have a minimal mass and be robust
to imperfections. Since the material characteristics and loads
were not sufficiently well-known, the Young modulus, density
and static loads had to be considered as fuzzy. The two design
variables were the plate thicknesses that had to be optimized
during the process.
The fuzzy multiobjective optimization problem was defined as
follows:

Fig. 14. Definition of fuzzy design variables.

Fig. 15. Definition of fuzzy imprecise parameters.

 F. Massa et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2009) 631–643 639

e max ; ef 1 Þ e max and e

Minimize defuzð mðe ee1; e e2; e e ÞÞ & Maximize rsp ð U
E; q modulus and the density; U f 1 are, respectively, the fuzzy
e e e e maximal displacements and the fuzzy first eigenfrequency; and
Subject to U max ðe
e1; e
e 2 ; E; F Þ # R U e U and R
R e f are the restriction rules applied, respectively, to the fuzzy
ef 1 ðe e2; e
e1; e ef
eÞ # R
E; q maximal displacements and the fuzzy first eigenfrequency.
ð4Þ The optimization problem required the following fuzzy data:

where m e and rsp are, respectively, the fuzzy mass of the structure e 1 and e
 Design variables: The thicknesses e e 2 had to be updated,
and robustness criterion of the fuzzy solutions; e e2; e
e1 ; e F; e e
E and q with an authorized variability of ±20% in the nominal values
are, respectively, the plate thicknesses, the static load, the Young (Fig. 14).

Fig. 16. Finite element model of the impactor sled.

Fig. 17. Definition of fuzzy restriction rules.

Fig. 18. Different cases of static loading.

640 F. Massa et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2009) 631–643

 Fuzzy solutions: Fuzzy solutions U e max and ef 1 were calculated

using PAEM method summarized in Section 3. The finite ele-
ment model associated with the impactor sled (Fig. 16) con-
tained 37,962 degrees of freedom (shell and brick elements).
Restraint conditions were applied to eight holes.
 Restriction rules: Restriction rules were applied (Fig. 17) to the
maximum fuzzy displacements U e max2 calculated for
e max1 and U
the different loading cases (Fig. 18) and to the fuzzy first eigen-
frequency e f 1 . The limits were defined based on previous accept-
able designs that corresponded to the study specifications.
 Objective functions: The fuzzy sets were optimized to produce a
minimum mass and a maximum robustness for the structure.
The mass criterion m e was evaluated by defuzzifying the corre-
sponding fuzzy number using the center of gravity method. A
solution was considered to be robust with respect to a parame-
ter if a large parameter variation implied a small solution varia-
tion. The dimensionless criterion rsp was evaluated using Eq. 5,
which can be stated as follows: the smaller the criterion, the
more robust the solution,
Ds pc
rsp ¼ ð5Þ
Dp sc
where Ds and Dp represent the areas of the membership func-
tions for the solution s and the parameter p, respectively. pc
and sc are the crisp values.
The proposed methodologies are implemented with MATLAB
and the Structural Dynamics Toolbox. The CPU time for this fuzzy
Fig. 19. Fuzzy solution’s membership functions (before and after the updating
optimization was 180mn (Pentium 4 2000 MHz).
step). First, the updating step was performed on the fuzzy data de-
fined above. Fig. 19 shows the fuzzy solutions before and after
updating. The restriction rule for the first eigenfrequency being
more restrictive than the ones for the maximum displacements
(first load), no specific updating was necessary for the second load
because the rule is always verified. The updated fuzzy design vari-
ables are shown in Fig. 20.
Second, the selection step was performed to obtain the different
adjusted design variables’ membership functions. Fig. 21 shows the
different feasible design spaces (gray) generated for l = 0 and the
best set (black), corresponding to the highest criterion values of
defuzzified objective functions. The best updated fuzzy design var-
iable’s membership functions and the corresponding fuzzy solu-
tions are illustrated in Figs. 22 and 23, respectively. Fig. 24
shows the stagnation of the robustness of the structure whereas
Fig. 25 highlights an improvement of the performance of the fuzzy

Fig. 20. Design variable’s membership functions (before and after the updating
step).

 Imprecise parameters: The material tested was standard alumin-

ium, but no other information was known. Variability was intro-
duced into the Young modulus e E and the density qe values in
order to represent the entire variation interval [13]. Variability
was also introduced into the load range e F , which was repre-
sented as an ordinary interval in order to take the most pessi-
mistic case into account (Fig. 15). Fig. 21. Different feasible design spaces obtained with the genetic algorithm.
 F. Massa et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2009) 631–643 641

Fig. 24. Robustness of the solutions.

Fig. 22. Design variable’s membership functions (before and after the selection
step).

Fig. 25. The mass structure’s membership function.

Fig. 23. Fuzzy solution’s membership functions (before and after the selection
step).

Fig. 26. Determination of the membership functions of fuzzy solutions.

mass. The center of gravity of membership functions of the fuzzy
mass is lower after the selection process.
This study allowed the designer some latitude in defining the
thicknesses of each plate. For a thickness e1 between 8.4 mm and
8.7 mm and a thickness e2 between 9.1 mm and 9.45 mm, the
structure meets and exceeds its performance requirements; a
thickness e1 between 7.45 mm and 9.1 mm and a thickness e2 be-
tween 8.55 mm and 10.7 mm is considered acceptable. Thick-
nesses over or under these limits do not respect the fuzzy design
specifications.
642 F. Massa et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2009) 631–643
Fig. 27. Crossover and mutation operators in a genetic algorithm.
7. Conclusion
A multiobjective optimization method, which takes parametric
imperfections into account, was developed to facilitate the design
of more robust structures. The imperfections are modelled using
fuzzy theory. The fuzzy solutions were optimized by updating
the fuzzy design variables to verify the fuzzy constraint functions
and by selecting the best updated fuzzy design variables to opti-
mize the fuzzy objective functions. A large model numerical appli-
cation was tested to show the efficiency of the method.
The proposed method allows both input data variability and de-
signer judgment and/or experience to be taken into account in the
design phase in an effort to produce robust optimal mechanical
behavior that satisfies the product specifications. Since we con-
sider computer-aided design (CAD) methodologies to be relatively
close to updating procedures, our future experiments will consist
of adapting our updating methodology for modal updating. This
will allow both the notion of expert judgment with respect to
experimental modal parameters and data sets obtained under dif-
ferent experimental conditions to be introduced into the updating
procedure.
Acknowledgments
The present research work has been supported by International
Campus on Safety and Intermodality in Transportation the Nord-
Pas-de-Calais Region, the European Community, the Regional Del-
egation for Research and Technology, the Ministry of Higher Edu-
cation and Research, and the National Center for Scientific
Research. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of these
institutions.
Appendix A. PAEM algorithm
The PAEM algorithm (Fig. 26) consists of the following steps:
For the crisp values (a = 1):
 Determine the studied quantities and their first-order sensitivi-
ties for each fuzzy parameter. The signs of the first-order sensi-
tivities indicate the functional dependence of the response
function and define the combinations of discrete fuzzy parame-
ter values for the following a-cut level, which could supply the
minimum and maximum variations (Step 1).
For each a-cut level:
 Evaluate the first-order derivatives of the quantities for the com-
binations of discrete fuzzy parameter values determined at the
previous a-cut level (Step 2).
 Compare the signs of the derivatives with those obtained at the
previous a-cut level.
 If the derivatives have the same signs, the response function
is considered to be locally monotonic, and the determined
combinations provide the minimum and maximum varia-
tions of the studied quantities for the current a-cut level
(Step 3a).
 If the derivatives have different signs, the response function
cannot be considered as monotonic, giving rise to an extreme
value between these two a-cut levels. The combination near-
est the extreme value is chosen and the search is stopped for
this variation (Step 3b).
Calculate the modified solutions for the selected combinations
of discrete fuzzy parameter values. The MAC criterion is applied
for fuzzy modal analysis to verify the shape of the modes. To de-
crease the calculation time and maintain a good level of accuracy,
the ‘‘exact” calculation (corresponding to a deterministic finite ele-
ment simulation) is replaced by a high-order approximation using
Padé rational functions.
Appendix B. Genetic algorithms
Genetic algorithms consist of optimization procedures based
on principles inspired by natural evolution. First, many individual
solutions are randomly generated to form an initial population,
with the population size depending on the nature of the problem
(minimum 15 members). Traditionally, the population is gener-
ated randomly to cover the entire design space. Each individual
in a population is a chromosome. Then, to create the next gener-
ation (minimum 10 generations), three classic operators are
used:
 F. Massa et al. / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198 (2009) 631–643
 Crossover: There are many different kinds of crossovers. The
most common type is the single-point crossover. This operator
combines genes from two chromosomes and creates new ones.
In single-point crossovers, a locus is chosen at which the
remaining alleles from one parent are swapped for the other.
As shown in Fig. 27, the children take one section of the chromo-
some from each parent. The point at which the chromosome is
broken depends on the randomly selected crossover point. The
probability of a crossover occurring is usually 60–70%. A random
two-point crossover is also possible.
 Mutation: After the crossover step, some individuals are copied
directly to create the new generation; others undergo mutation
in order to ensure that the individuals are not all exactly the
same. As shown in Fig. 27, a loop is made through all the alleles
of all the individuals. If an allele is selected for mutation, it may
either undergo a small change or be replaced by a new value.
The probability of a mutation occurring is usually 1–5%.
 Selection: During each successive generation, a proportion of the
existing population is selected to breed a new generation. Indi-
vidual solutions are selected through a fitness-based process.
Generally, the selection methods rank the fitness of each solu-
tion and select the best solutions.
These different operators are used to maintain a sufficiently
large population diversity, preventing premature convergence on
poor solutions. More details about genetic algorithms for multiob-
jective optimization problems are available in the literature.
643
References
[1] F. Massa, B. Lallemand, T. Tison, P. Level, Fuzzy eigensolutions of mechanical
structures, Engrg. Comput. 21 (1) (2004) 66–77.
[2] F. Massa, T. Tison, B. Lallemand, A fuzzy procedure for the static design of
imprecise structures, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (2006) 925–941.
[3] F. Massa, K. Ruffin, T. Tison, B. Lallemand, A complete method for efficient
fuzzy modal analysis, J. Sound Vib. 309 (1–2) (2008) 63–85.
[4] M. Hanss, The transformation method for the simulation and analysis of
systems with uncertain parameters, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 130 (3) (2002) 277–289.
[5] S. Donders, D. Vandepitte, J. Van de Peer, W. Desmet, Assessment of
uncertainty on structural dynamic responses with the short transformation
method, J. Sound Vib. 288 (2005) 523–549.
[6] S.S. Rao, P. Sawyer, Fuzzy finite element approach for the analysis of
imprecisely defined systems, AIAA J. 33 (12) (1995) 2364–2370.
[7] G.Y. Wang, W.Q. Wang, Fuzzy optimum design of structures, Engrg. Optimiz. 8
(1985) 291–300.
[8] S.S. Rao, Multi-objective optimization of fuzzy structural systems, Int. J.
Numer. Methods Engrg. 24 (1978) 1157–1171.
[9] O. Kelesoglu, Fuzzy multiobjective optimization of truss-structures using
genetic algorithm, Adv. Engrg. Softw. 38 (2007) 717–721.
[10] J. Ramík, Optimal solutions in optimization problem with objective function
depending on fuzzy parameters, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 158 (2007) 1873–1881.
[11] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inform. Control 8 (1965) 338–353.
[12] L.A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to
approximate reasoning – Part I, Inform. Sci. 8 (1975) 199–249.
[13] L.A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to
approximate reasoning – Part II, Inform. Sci. 8 (1975) 301–357.
[14] L.A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to
approximate reasoning – Part III, Inform. Sci. 8 (1975) 43–80.
[15] J. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, University of Michigan
Press, Ann Arbor MI, 1975.
[16] D. Dubois, H. Prade, Fuzzy sets and systems: theory and applications, in: R.
Bellman (Ed.), Mathematics in Science and Engineering, Academic Press,
London, 1980.